If you pay minimum wage, you are saying that you would've paid less if it weren't illegal.
I would pay less taxes if it weren't illegal. I'd pay less for just about anything if given the chance.
Regardless, there's a point where you won't pay more. That's the real issue here. Doesn't matter if it's automated or manual, there is a point where it's just not worth it.
Society thinks people should have a minimum standard of living. Great! I agree. Then society should pay for it. Stop forcing employers of low-skill workers to bear the weight of wealth redistribution. Put it in the tax code, which is more directly under the control of society.
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.
An easy way to spot this fallacy is when someone says
Me I pay for Amazon prime, and I probably barely just break even on it over the course of a year.
It isn't easy to compare Prime with MoviePass.
Prime includes benefits in shipping, on-demand video, music streaming, and more. It's hard to compare (even in retrospect) exactly how much is saved with prime, since people often won't pay separately for those things, and when they do the cost savings isn't always the same each time (e.g. expedited shipping).
For something like MoviePass, it's much easier to ensure you go to the movies enough to get your money's worth. Just make sure it's greater than ($9.95 * 12) / TICKET_PRICE.
For my theater that means I need to see 11 movies a year to break even. That's more than I care to see, so I'll pass. Pun intended.
I volunteered at a local non-profit coffee shop. All volunteer labor, costs passed on to the customer.
Across the board the prices were around 30% - 60% of Starbucks. I was actually surprised it was that high and doesn't mesh with the idea that Starbucks makes 95% profit. If we paid everyone, the prices wouldn't have been much better than Starbucks (maybe worse), and that's still with no profit.
Capital costs represent a very large percentage of costs passed on to consumers, as usual with any restaurant.
You are showing your ignorance by claiming that the AR-15 platform doesn't include hunting capabilities. It has many configurations which are useful for hunting various game.
And it most certainly can scare off intruders. That is the reason many people are against it... it looks too scary.
I agree that sensible gun laws and mental health support would help. But banning the AR-15 in all configurations is not sensible... it is the result of fear of what people don't understand.
Menus hide options too. Most people first figured out how they work on accident or simply by exploring the interface.
Just like scrolling a list until it goes past the last item... well, what do you know, it started refreshing. And now, so does practically every scrolling list interface.
Often the responsive design would hides things I need
This is the actual problem, choosing to remove functionality. Responsive design doesn't have to do this, and should offer some way to perform the same tasks (assuming the task is not specific to a form factor).
Fail in what way? If it just didn't recognize your fingerprint, then that's a false negative. Which is a completely different issue and does not have the same impact to the security of the system.
Power always concentrates, whether it be in your government or in corporations. Or in that group of parents whose kids get special consideration in return for their generous giving.
Free market forces help spread this power, but when that fails (and it sometimes does), regulations seek to fill the gap. So do regulations which provide checks and balances within the structures of government.
They break down Windows by version (unlike the others on the list), so they show as the next 6 items. But those versions are all based on the same code. They tend to share most exploits and fixes for versions that are supported in the same year.
No thanks. It is impossible to find an example of UI that is "perfect" to everyone for every purpose, so any example I provide here (especially here) will be torn apart by someone.
There's nothing about non-flat UIs that make them special for discoverability. Sure they have borders that indicate they can be clicked or effects that give you information about their current state, but flat UIs can have the same features. Material and Fluent designs are examples of incorporating those kinds of cues.
I disagree to a point. The hammer isn't always the wrong tool. CLI, after all, is a great user interface for many users and it's perhaps the flattest UI that exists.
Even for GUIs, flat/minimal should be used for reducing clutter and "getting out of the way" of what the user needs to do. Still, 3D is very useful and intuitive for UIs with overlapping windows and elements. Having a well-designed mixture can result in a clean interface which is also organized and functional.
Of all the movies and TV shows I purchased on disk years ago, I've watched maybe one a second time.
I'm just not one to watch something over and over again. And part of it has to do with technology... I no longer have a VHS player hooked up, and the quality of VHS and DVD are sub-par today. The same can happen with online services; the app may not be available on future TVs a few years from now and the quality will likely not be upgraded for free.
I don't really want a different app for each of the 7 services I need to buy to replicate what I use in my cable bundle. Each app with a different UI, different login, different device compatibility, different DVR/On-Demand capabilities... no thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
They already do this. That is a different problem and is not addressed by either method.
If you pay minimum wage, you are saying that you would've paid less if it weren't illegal.
I would pay less taxes if it weren't illegal. I'd pay less for just about anything if given the chance.
Regardless, there's a point where you won't pay more. That's the real issue here. Doesn't matter if it's automated or manual, there is a point where it's just not worth it.
Society thinks people should have a minimum standard of living. Great! I agree. Then society should pay for it. Stop forcing employers of low-skill workers to bear the weight of wealth redistribution. Put it in the tax code, which is more directly under the control of society.
You have bigger problems than a registry key if the malware has root.
Your logical fallacy is: tu quoque .
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.
An easy way to spot this fallacy is when someone says
You people
"See! The earth is a huge ball!"
"Now wait just a minute, all I see is a huge circle."
Me I pay for Amazon prime, and I probably barely just break even on it over the course of a year.
It isn't easy to compare Prime with MoviePass.
Prime includes benefits in shipping, on-demand video, music streaming, and more. It's hard to compare (even in retrospect) exactly how much is saved with prime, since people often won't pay separately for those things, and when they do the cost savings isn't always the same each time (e.g. expedited shipping).
For something like MoviePass, it's much easier to ensure you go to the movies enough to get your money's worth. Just make sure it's greater than ($9.95 * 12) / TICKET_PRICE.
For my theater that means I need to see 11 movies a year to break even. That's more than I care to see, so I'll pass. Pun intended.
I volunteered at a local non-profit coffee shop. All volunteer labor, costs passed on to the customer.
Across the board the prices were around 30% - 60% of Starbucks. I was actually surprised it was that high and doesn't mesh with the idea that Starbucks makes 95% profit. If we paid everyone, the prices wouldn't have been much better than Starbucks (maybe worse), and that's still with no profit.
Capital costs represent a very large percentage of costs passed on to consumers, as usual with any restaurant.
I found a better breakdown of coffee shop costs, which concludes:
What’s the lesson here? Certainly it’s that you’re paying for a lot more than the coffee when you choose to buy from a coffee shop. . . .
But, when you buy a Cappuccino Grande, you’re mostly paying for the privilege of enjoying it in a coffee shop.
Once my Win2K hibernates, I can just tap the mouse trackpad and the OS loads in just 1 second.
That isn't hibernation. It's standby.
If you don't understand the difference, disconnect the power cord/battery and reconnect. Hibernate will boot in the same time, standby will not.
Well, it's a professional tool. Minimalist interfaces make more sense when targeting casual/unskilled users.
It has been about as long for me. Probably depends on the airline and aircraft.
Aircraft for one. My laptop doesn't usually have room to open fully.
You are showing your ignorance by claiming that the AR-15 platform doesn't include hunting capabilities. It has many configurations which are useful for hunting various game.
And it most certainly can scare off intruders. That is the reason many people are against it... it looks too scary.
I agree that sensible gun laws and mental health support would help. But banning the AR-15 in all configurations is not sensible... it is the result of fear of what people don't understand.
Menus hide options too. Most people first figured out how they work on accident or simply by exploring the interface.
Just like scrolling a list until it goes past the last item... well, what do you know, it started refreshing. And now, so does practically every scrolling list interface.
Often the responsive design would hides things I need
This is the actual problem, choosing to remove functionality. Responsive design doesn't have to do this, and should offer some way to perform the same tasks (assuming the task is not specific to a form factor).
I'm not sure why you think tapping a menu button and then moving to the Refresh menu option is easier to use.
More discoverable, sure. But only because people have figured out to tap on some specific word or icon...
Fail in what way? If it just didn't recognize your fingerprint, then that's a false negative. Which is a completely different issue and does not have the same impact to the security of the system.
Power always concentrates, whether it be in your government or in corporations. Or in that group of parents whose kids get special consideration in return for their generous giving.
Free market forces help spread this power, but when that fails (and it sometimes does), regulations seek to fill the gap. So do regulations which provide checks and balances within the structures of government.
They break down Windows by version (unlike the others on the list), so they show as the next 6 items. But those versions are all based on the same code. They tend to share most exploits and fixes for versions that are supported in the same year.
No thanks. It is impossible to find an example of UI that is "perfect" to everyone for every purpose, so any example I provide here (especially here) will be torn apart by someone.
There's nothing about non-flat UIs that make them special for discoverability. Sure they have borders that indicate they can be clicked or effects that give you information about their current state, but flat UIs can have the same features. Material and Fluent designs are examples of incorporating those kinds of cues.
Flat is not the opposite of discoverable. You can have both, despite what some popular recent implementations do.
It seems hard enough to get an OS-wide light vs. dark setting.
Flat is not better. At all.
I disagree to a point. The hammer isn't always the wrong tool. CLI, after all, is a great user interface for many users and it's perhaps the flattest UI that exists.
Even for GUIs, flat/minimal should be used for reducing clutter and "getting out of the way" of what the user needs to do. Still, 3D is very useful and intuitive for UIs with overlapping windows and elements. Having a well-designed mixture can result in a clean interface which is also organized and functional.
Of all the movies and TV shows I purchased on disk years ago, I've watched maybe one a second time.
I'm just not one to watch something over and over again. And part of it has to do with technology... I no longer have a VHS player hooked up, and the quality of VHS and DVD are sub-par today. The same can happen with online services; the app may not be available on future TVs a few years from now and the quality will likely not be upgraded for free.
I don't really want a different app for each of the 7 services I need to buy to replicate what I use in my cable bundle. Each app with a different UI, different login, different device compatibility, different DVR/On-Demand capabilities... no thanks.
I lived through the 1990s, and I don't remember anyone saying much of anything about security.